And Ted Bundy himself said he found a lot of inspiration for his hobby from porn, so the beneficial effect also has a downside.
Maybe it was the interaction of leaded gasoline and porn that made him a monster!
(Tying the two halves of this thread together … 
).
This was a desperation shot from Bundy when he was staring at the electric chair. I put no stock in it. As a much more credible expert put it: “Pornography? I’ve been looking at it all my life. It hasn’t affected me anything.”
Considering your hardline stance on crime and punishment, IIRC, adaher, I’m shocked by this position of yours. IIRC, you’ve credited harsher punishments in the 90s for the drop in crime, and you’ve advocated against reforms to reduce the harshness because you thought crime would return to high levels. If it was really chemicals that were responsible (and I’m actually partially convinced of this too – I even started a thread about it a few years ago: Is the recent drop in violent crime due to banning lead in gasoline? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board), then why are you so certain that extremely harsh penalties must remain to deter crime?
Because I see the purpose of prison as keeping the public safe from predators. I don’t believe in prison as revenge, and I don’t believe it’s effective rehabilitation, although I’m open to innovative rehabilitation ideas for people who are salvageable.
If you’ve got someone who is clearly a dangerous problem, the best way to solve that is to remove that person from society. I don’t see harsh penalties as deterrence. I see harsh penalties as a way to remove dangerous people from society, which reduces crime by them not being able to prey on anyone outside.
I believe in this just as much now as I did in the 1980s, because the last thing I want is those now 40 and 50 somethings coming home, acting all crazy beating up their kids and wives, and creating a new generation of nutty criminals.